posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:37 PM
Reality and Existence: a synthesis of the different schools of thought
Although technology and science has advanced tremendously over the centuries and millennia’s, and the same can be said for our societal systems and
infrastructure’s, the problems our species faces is seemingly growing in accordance to this growth and the mysterious lands of that which is unknown
remains incomprehensively vast. With an extroverted viewpoint, there is the problem that concerns our physical bodies, our environment, and the
relationship that binds the two together; with an introverted turn of the mind, there is the problem of our particular set of emotions, and of the
thoughts, desires, and instincts by which we control our action. Both, national and international, societal problems are many; why should there still
remain human caused atrocities such as starvation, war and suffering, when we are so aware of such challenges arising from outside of our species? Why
should the majority of our species remain in the thrall of extreme poverty, of sickness, and discomfort? Is there a purpose underlying all that we see
around us, and if so, what is it? What is the destiny of our species, insofar as the universe as a whole, and what is its origin, and what is the
reason for our/its present condition? These are questions that most, if not all, of us will ponder upon at some point in our lives, and have passed
through the minds of thinker’s right down through the millennia’s.
There have been many attempts to reply to these questions, and as we study them, we find that the answers fall into three main groups. The first being
Realism or Materialism, and it teaches that things are what they seem; that matter and force, as we know them, are the only reality, and that
it is not possible for there to be anything beyond the tangible. This school of thought contends that one should be satisfied with facts as we know
them, or as science explains them. For some of us though, this explanation fails to go far enough and discounts too much of the unexplainable. In
refusing to concern itself with anything except that which can be proven and demonstrated it stops short at the very point where the enquirer says,
“that is so, but why?”
Secondly, there is the point of view which we can best, perhaps, call Supernaturalism. This school of thought contends that things may perhaps,
after all, not be exactly as they seem. They contend that man, and all he sees, cannot possibly be only an accumulation of physical atoms, material
substance, and that of the tangible. Rather, that there is a universal consciousness, power, and/or phenomena nature that links all of reality
together in a subtle but unified manner. This is which has led to the evolution of the Abrahamic religions point of view, which posits a God outside
of the universe, who created it, but is itself unbound by it. This school of thought contends that this being or power guides our worlds and universe,
keeping our little human life in the hollow of his/its ‘hand’, ordering all things according to some hidden purpose which is not possible for us,
with our finite minds, to glimpse, much less to understand. This point of view, like that of Realism, is unable to explain away the whole of
our problems and reality, and thus only embodies a partial truth.
The third line of thought we might call the Idealistic or Philosophic. It posits an evolutionary process within all manifestation, and
identifies life within a universal process. It is the exact opposite of Realism/Materialism, and brings the supernatural deity, predicated by
the religionist, into the position of that which is evolving through, and by means of, the universe, just as man is evolving consciousness through the
medium of an objective physical body.
These three standpoints – the frankly materialistic, the exclusively supernatural, and the idealistic – sum up the three main
lines of thought which have been put forward as the explanation of our reality and universal process, yet all of them remain only partial truths and
fail to offer a holistic understanding for our minds to grasp. It is unfortunate that these three are perceived by the majority of us to be in
conflict with each other, and thus cannot be reconciled into a synthesis of one, however, I contend that maybe this is due more so to our egos and
rigidness of belief, than it is due to an inability of these concepts to be unified. We must remember in connection with every statement of truth made
by these schools of thought, that each is made from a particular point of view. Until we have further enlightened our mental processes, and until we
are able to think in abstract terms as well as in concrete, it will not be possible for us to fully answer the question of what is truth, nor express
any aspect of that truth in a perfectly unbiased manner.
There have been people, although far and few, throughout our history that have incorporated a broader view into their belief system, one that accounts
for all three of these schools of thought. In fact, many more, beyond enlightened beings and scientists who posits a certain high level of
intellectual genius, are beginning to think in this manner and that is truly a hopeful sign for our species. However, many of us still remain in our
rigidness and refuse to move beyond the boundaries set forth by our egoic conditioned minds. This group of people is also growing, and is causing much
unneeded conflict within our species; conflict that is counter-productive to our growth and understanding of reality, and clouding the waters of
realization for our species as a whole. This is truly an unfortunate and depressing sign for our species, and it must be challenged if we seek to move
forward in this new millennia in any sort of a productive and helpful manner.
It is not enough to say the beliefs of the religionists (Supernaturalists) are wrong or misguided, if you are unwilling to say the same of the
materialist/realist, insofar as the idealist/philosophic, and vice versa. It is not enough to say one school of thought is wrong, if you
are unwilling to say they are, or may also be, partially right. It is not enough to challenge the beliefs of others if you are unwilling to challenge
the beliefs of your own. Doing so only binds you to the same restrictive thought patterns that you so dearly want to challenge. Doing so only furthers
the conflicts between our species. Doing so only holds us back from achieving the understanding and insight that we all are seeking, and allows the
possibility for self destruction to exponentially increase. Therefore I purpose for you to relinquish your attachments to your beliefs, and ponder
upon the beliefs of others as if they were your own. You need not worry about losing sight of what you already know, or believe to know, for, these
patterns of thought are already deeply conditioned within your mind and will never completely leave you. It is not what you already see or know, but
what you refuse to look at, what you refuse to think about, that is allowing for your, and thus our, ignorance and conflict to presume.
Maybe by the union of these three lines of thought; science, religion and philosophy, we may already have a working knowledge of the truth as it is,
remembering at the same time that truth is accessible within ourselves as much as it is without.
Thanks for reading.